To Research - A new way of thinking

So, research has always been fueled by the amount of influence and popularity it recieves. You could say that it is a result of the importance of the research, however, I would argue that that particular research is more of an example of popularity than anything else. A popular subject has hundreds, if not thousands of books, journal articles, tv spots, blogs, and even college classes devoted to it. Look at Deviance, Drugs and Society, Sexuality, etc, etc. 

One of the most frustrating things in research is trying to break new ground. It's hard. As an undergraduate, if I published a paper that broke new ground in social research it would be mostly ignored; if I did it as a PhD candidate, I might turn a few heads. Really, when it comes down to it, we need to find other research like the stuff we're doing in order to prove to the academic community that we really aren't crazy; that people or chemistry or whatever we study, is actually like the author thinks. I mean, check out all these other guys that said mostly the same thing.

So here coems Social Capital. From Wikipedia:

In The Forms of Capital^[15] Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms of capital: economic capital, cultural capital and social capital. He defines social capital as "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition".^[16] His treatment of the concept is instrumental, focusing on the advantages to possessors of social capital and the “deliberate construction of sociability for the purpose of creating this resource”.^[1]

I would argue that researchers more than likely acknowledge this on a more conscious level than the rest of the population. Old boys clubs, school rivalries, general disdain for a school producing work, the worth of the school, and more probably influence more publications than, say, the national media that is feeding off of this stuff doing the exact same thing. 

So, ok, something of an assumption I have been making. Call it an a priori assumption if you want. It is simply from this point that I want to start. 

So, you have that. My basic outline of how research eventually finds itself into the mainstream:

• Given the location of an individual in the realm of social capital, they determine a subject that they would like to write about. 
• From there, they decide a series of journals that they would like to publish in (this is where the ideas of social capital become ever more apparent).
• The editors of these articles, despite intent to publish given the merit of the work, judge based on how their social capital feels about the school and type of person that submitted the article
• Despite the intent of the publications, the bias already exists and the work that the media does further espouses these biases by selecting from prominent journals and furthering the extent to which the bias exists
• Public opinion changes according to the bias of the publications that media facts are based on
  

This isn't so much a 'way it is' but 'the way I think it is'. I know I am probably making more than a few judgements of my own. This kind of work is riddled with that sort of thing. However, recognizing it is at least a step I would like to address. 

For next time:

Internet Research
Publication Houses without editors
books.google.com

scholar.google.com

wired articles